Quite possible they are wartime – intended for construction as recognition models.

Coincidentally I have just today put a 1944/45 model plan for a Henschel Hs293 “Glider Bomb” on evilbay. It’s original price was 1/= and I suspect it was sold for that purpose.

Roger Smith.

D.H.86 Maintenance Manual

Thought I had one of these somewhere – found it today (along with one for the D.H.90 dragonfly)

Unfortunately it doesn’t have details of the instrument panel I expected it to have.

Roger Smith

….Lets just hope it looks better than the BoB Stukas
Moggy

Some of the Ju 87 models made were pretty good. Can’t remember from the film how accurate the flying models were only that, when they were blown up, it was VERY obvious they were models

Roger Smith.

Blimey this got deep!……..

I’ll second that 😮 I’ve tried to keep up.

Whilst I fall generally into the camp that believes “stunning” or “statement” designs deliver less accomodation per £ than a bog-standard “shed” I’m about to do a bit of “shooting my own foot” here.

I don’t think anyone has yet brought volume into the equation.

When I was involved in the design/building (yes, architects were involved and WE had the problem you sometimes hear about of them not listening to their Client) of The Sir Frank Whittle Jet Heritage Centre at MAM we debated long and hard about the two alternatives of use. First to cram as much of the collection in as possible (thus protecting more aircraft from the elements) or second to put fewer aeroplanes in and enable visitors to look at them properly (and be able to photograph them). We chose (for better or worse) the second option (although you may not guess that now).

However, aware that our “shed” – like most aircraft hangars – had a height greater than neccessary we not only built it still a little higher but called for the design calculations to enable (lighter) aircraft to be suspended from the roof beams. The extra height also allowed for an internal two-story section to be built later without loss of floor space. The budget was about £120,000 and provided 10,000 sq.ft. of floor space – thus about £120/sq. ft. (in 1987?).

The point I’m (eventually) getting to is that Cosford (and I haven’t been there yet), despite comments about aircraft being cramped/un-photographable, utilises it’s full volume. You can say the same about the AAM and (much as I dislike it and I have seen it) AirSpace.

Roger Smith.

….. This was how the J29 ended up at Coventry, as the aircraft reverted back to the Swedish AF after Southend failed and was subsequntly then loaned by them to the MAM…….

Mark, it’s a long time ago but my recollection is that the Swedes were persuaded to donate the J.29 after it was pointed out how much work would be required to restore it and make it displayable. This “persuasion” extended to them delivering a replacement canopy to Baginton.

Roger Smith.

So, did the RAF operate Harriers as “fighters” or were they all “ground attack” aircraft???
I remember publicity a long time ago about the Harrier’s advantage in dog-fighting using the thrust nozzles to slow down suddenly, be overtaken by a pursuer, then becoming pursuer.
Roger Smith.

…..Perhaps there are those who have noticed similar ‘exhibits ‘ at French airfields?

When I went on several of Bob Ogden’s European tours in the early 1970s it was Dassault Ouragans – it seemed that every little airfield in France had one. I always wanted one – wish they were still around.

Roger Smith.

Rob, have you consulted the magnificent thread on WW1 survivors? (I still say it would be nice to have it published 🙂 )

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=66462&highlight=World+War+survivors

Roger Smith.